|
Post by gillianren on Jun 14, 2007 1:37:08 GMT -4
So I was watching Captains Courageous today, and my best friend interrupted to make me watch Headline Prime instead. Why? Denis Leary was being surly at CTs.
Now, bear in mind, his cousin was a firefighter. Was, because he died fighting a fire. Not at the WTC, but he's still pretty passionate on the subject of firemen.
He's also mad because there's no memorial yet--I'm not, because these things take time. (How long did it get to have a WWII memorial in DC again?) But mostly, he's mad because he feels that CTs devalue the sacrifice made by men like, well, his cousin.
So my question is, what motivation does he have to lie? What motivation do the firemen he's interacted with--and he's interacted with a lot--have to lie? Or are they all deceived? If so, how are they all deceived about how severe the fires were, for example?
And why would an iconoclast like Denis Leary fall for the "official story" without investigation?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 16, 2007 22:27:31 GMT -4
"fall"? Exactly which parts of the official story did he fall for?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 16, 2007 23:27:33 GMT -4
I'm confident gillianren is posing a rhetorical question to CTs, and that she doesn't think he "fell" for anything. I personally don't like Denis Leary, but I have much respect for him for what he's done for firefighters. His cousin was lost at the infamous Worcester Cold Storage fire.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 17, 2007 2:42:49 GMT -4
Leary is entitled to his opinion like anyone else. I totally disagree with the view that "CT''s devalue the sacrifice made" by the firefighters, etc. on 9/11.
Were they all "deceived about how severe the fires were"? Imo - no, they were not. They had years of experience, and would not have all gone in if they felt the fires had left the structures on the brink of total collapse.
I do believe that they were deceived, however. They thought that they were just dealing with fires.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 17, 2007 9:29:47 GMT -4
I recently watched a video of a caller to a TV news station who was an unlicensed medic who rang in and described in tears what he and the firefighters he was near went through. He was under no illusion that they meant to bring the towers down and neither were the firefighters he was with. The fact that they continued to try and rescue people while the attack continued after the aircraft impacts shows incredible guts. I am searching for it.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jul 17, 2007 16:07:48 GMT -4
The above make an interesting pair of posts. Turbonium thinks it was an inside job because the rescuers didn't expect the buildings to collapse, while 3onthetree thinks it was an inside job because the rescuers did expect the buildings to collapse.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 17, 2007 16:15:26 GMT -4
I'm not brave enough to be a firefighter, but surely the job implies that you might sacrifice your life for others--whether you expect a building to collapse or not, isn't it still part of your job to try to save as many lives as you can?
And, yes, that was most assuredly a rhetorical question. Bluntly, I find the conspiracy theories on this subject imbecilic, devoid of evidence, and obtuse.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 17, 2007 18:04:06 GMT -4
The above make an interesting pair of posts. Turbonium thinks it was an inside job because the rescuers didn't expect the buildings to collapse, while 3onthetree thinks it was an inside job because the rescuers did expect the buildings to collapse. Rubbish. I'm saying that I saw an interview where a survivor said he thought they were going to finish the job. and they did. Newtons theory's make it an inside job besides the plethora of other evidence. You think it's a CT when it rattles your cage. You must have great suspension on your cage.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 17, 2007 18:45:25 GMT -4
Newtons theory's make it an inside job besides the plethora of other evidence.
Which theory is that? The one that says that once an object is in motion it remains in motion? The one that says that things fall directly towards the centre of mass of the Earth?
And what other evidence? In the last 6 years I haven't seen any evidence from the so called Truth movement that isn't based on inept science, uneducated speculation or outright lies.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 17, 2007 19:05:41 GMT -4
Newtons theory's make it an inside job besides the plethora of other evidence. Which theory is that? The one that says that once an object is in motion it remains in motion? The one that says that things fall directly towards the centre of mass of the Earth? And what other evidence? In the last 6 years I haven't seen any evidence from the so called Truth movement that isn't based on inept science, uneducated speculation or outright lies. Keep reading. I think you're missing vital pieces of information.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 17, 2007 20:15:24 GMT -4
Dr Steven Jones doesn't know the difference in composition of Structural Steel and Stainless Steel. He expects to find cromium in structural steel and queries why there is manganese, something a 5 minute search on the web would find him. He thinks that because there is a pressence of Aluminium and Iron in the WTC dust that it had to be therm*te, not seeming to realise that a) the main structural supports were iron based, and that not only was there a massive plane made of Aluminium, but the towers themselves had Aluminium cladding all over them. He not claims that Thermate was used because of the presence of the managnese (used in common structural steel) but ignores the fact that there is no presence of Barium, a major component of Thermate. Not only that he ignores the numberous sources of sulphur to exclusively claim it come from Therm*te. He had previous posted images of compacted concrete slabs complete with rebar and burnt paper, claiming it was metal slag, he claims that molten aluminium can't glow yellow (dispite the numerous photos of molten aluminium doing so,) he still claims the buildings fell in 10 seconds, even though it can be simply shown that it took 16-18 for WTC 2 to fall and 18-20 for WTC 1. Dr Jones is a joke and anyone that supports his research as "scientific" doesn't know the meaning of the word.
Jones does have one interesting thing however, the iron sphericals. However this is still not proof of Therm*te, and in fact there are several people, including Dr Frank Greening, who are working on another theory that so far has proved promising. When blood is mixed with molten aluminuim, there is a nasty reaction, and one of the by products is small magnetic iron sphericals. While they have yet to get a sample of Jones sphericals to compare them with those they have made in experiments, it shows that Jones has not and has not even bothered to attempt to eliminate any likely alternatives to his own theories, and as such, fails as a scientist.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 17, 2007 20:47:28 GMT -4
CTists prefer to operate by the Holmsian dictum. First they declare by fiat that all other explanations are impossible. Then they decide that one particular explanation of equal improbability to any other must be the true one.
Is it past time that a Godwin's Law was developed for 9-11 discussion, in re the moment "the heroic firefighters" is brought up by any party, civilized debate is considered over?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jul 17, 2007 22:47:04 GMT -4
Newtons theory's make it an inside job besides the plethora of other evidence. Which theory is that? The one that says that once an object is in motion it remains in motion? The one that says that things fall directly towards the centre of mass of the Earth? And what other evidence? In the last 6 years I haven't seen any evidence from the so called Truth movement that isn't based on inept science, uneducated speculation or outright lies. Keep reading. I think you're missing vital pieces of information. - What exactly does this have to do with Newton's Laws? - When you find a structural engineer specialized in steel framed BUILDINGS* as opposed to a mechanical engineer specialized in HVAC and other non-structural aspects of building design get back to us. *Not deep sea oil platforms - It sounds like he never read the NIST report
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 18, 2007 3:29:52 GMT -4
For you to believe the OCT you best stick with Phantoms third law.
It's a beauty, although I'm a little bit confused as to why in Phantoms 3rd law the mass of the towers didn't make a great big hole to the center of the Earth. Can you explain that?
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 18, 2007 6:12:55 GMT -4
3onthetree, look-up the difference between "towards" and "to" and get back to us.
|
|